NH Knife Law Grey Area for Karambits?

[zippolight2002]

Hello, I've been doing a lot of research on the knife laws in NH to make sure it was legal to own a karambit knife before I bought one. Everything I've seen says it's a-ok since 2010. The one I'm looking at is this one:

(Yes, I know, probably not practical but this is more for show than self-defense). And this is where it gets a bit grey. I found a site today (http://www.knifeden.com/knife-laws-in-new-hampshire/ contains the following line (which not one site I've found mentions the second part of this sentence) "The continued ban on metal knuckles (otherwise known as brass knuckles) still prevents ownership or carrying of knives with metal finger rings, however."

Since the knife I'm looking to buy has a single metal finger ring, would that make it illegal to own/carry? Or is this clause for knives where the entire handle is metal rings, to prevent people from just modifying brass knuckles with a blade and calling it a knife and thus making it legal?

Anyone have any experience with the law regarding exactly how that clause is meant to be taken?

Thanks for any help you can give me!

 

[glistam]

The official text of the statutes you refer to can be found here:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XII/159/159-16.htm

Knifeden.com is a third party website, not an official government source, and the author, Rhian Hunt, is not an attorney. As such, his statement regarding finger rings is purely speculation. He could be right or he could be wrong. He's not unique in his statement; the idea of a Karambit's ring being regarded as metal knuckles has be tossed around for years. But as of this writing there is not a single case anywhere in the United States where the question has been addressed directly. Even if you paid a lawyer for an opinion, it would only be his or her opinion and nothing more. In my personal interpretation, obtaining a conviction using this logic would be a hard uphill battle for a prosecutor, due to it having far-reaching unintended consequences: Lots of things have retention rings you put your finger through that are not intended as weapons, including plant-trimmers and sewing implements, not to mention common jewelry. The judge would likely throw the case out due to vague and overbroad interpretation.

 

[zippolight2002]

That's kind of what I was assuming as well. Given the way the law is actually written, if they intended for it to affect Karambits they would have specifically said so.

Thanks for replying!

 

[rycen]

That's kind of what I was assuming as well. Given the way the law is actually written, if they intended for it to affect Karambits they would have specifically said so.

Thanks for replying!

Welcome.

Most knife laws were written decades ago and might not perfectly cover today's designs. Unless the law is crystal clear (most aren't) I'd opt not to be in the grey area.

 

[Charlie_K]

The official text of the statutes you refer to can be found here:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XII/159/159-16.htm

Knifeden.com is a third party website, not an official government source, and the author, Rhian Hunt, is not an attorney. As such, his statement regarding finger rings is purely speculation. He could be right or he could be wrong. He's not unique in his statement; the idea of a Karambit's ring being regarded as metal knuckles has be tossed around for years. But as of this writing there is not a single case anywhere in the United States where the question has been addressed directly. Even if you paid a lawyer for an opinion, it would only be his or her opinion and nothing more. In my personal interpretation, obtaining a conviction using this logic would be a hard uphill battle for a prosecutor, due to it having far-reaching unintended consequences: Lots of things have retention rings you put your finger through that are not intended as weapons, including plant-trimmers and sewing implements, not to mention common jewelry. The judge would likely throw the case out due to vague and overbroad interpretation.

Not likely. I honestly can't remember where I read it, it might've been on this site, but one member recounted a court case where a teen was arrested, charged, and convicted for possession of metal knuckles, for carrying a kickstand to his bike. It took a higher court to reverse the decision, long after the damage had already been done.

 

[glistam]

Not likely. I honestly can't remember where I read it, it might've been on this site, but one member recounted a court case where a teen was arrested, charged, and convicted for possession of metal knuckles, for carrying a kickstand to his bike. It took a higher court to reverse the decision, long after the damage had already been done.

Yes, that was In re David V, 2010. But I've read up some more on that one.

1) It was not a Karambit. It was cylindrical footrest used on a bicycle. So my statement about all this being speculation still holds.
2) The case took place in California, using a different statute, with a different definition of knuckles and legal language from NH. Also we're comparing the bat-s criminal justice system (cops and courts) in CA to those in NH. I think NH is far more hospitable considering the sweeping knife legalization bill they passed.
3) David V 's circumstances were suspicious. He had gang affiliations, there was specific evidence that this was a type of weapon said gang carried, and all evidence pointed to him carried it with the avowed purpose of punching someone with it.

So even with In re David V, we're still back at square one.